SINGH, J.:
Crim. Case No. T-7306: [Violation of Biron]The petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charges and subsequently filed two motions to enter into a plea bargain and plead guilty to a lesser offense under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165, citing the Supreme Court Administrative Matter (A.M.) No. 18-03-16-SC or the "Adoption of the Plea-Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases."[8]
That at about 5:05 o'clock in the afternoon of November 10, 2018, at Purok 1, San Ramon, [Tabaco City,] Province of Albay, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being legally authorized to sell and deliver any dangerous drug, then and there knowingly, willfully, and feloniously, sold for Php500.00 and delivered to PO2 Christian Romano of Tabaco City Police Station as the poseur-buyer, one (1) piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as CBRl containing 0.1015 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride ("shabu"), knowing the same to be a dangerous drug, to the damage and prejudice of the public and government.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.
Crim. Case No. T-7307: [Violation of Biron]
That at about 5:05 o'clock in the afternoon of November 10, 2018, at Purok 1, San Ramon, Tabaco City, Province of Albay, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being legally authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there knowingly, willfully, and feloniously, have in his possession, control, and custody, one (1) piece heat-sealed transparent (plastic sachet] marked as CBR2 containing 0.0738 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride[,] commonly known as "shabu", a dangerous drug, ("shabu"), to the damage and prejudice of the public and government.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.
Crim. Case No. T-7308: [Violation of all petitioners]
That at about 5:05 o'clock in the afternoon of November 10, 2018, at Purok 1, San Ramon, [Tabaco City,] Province of Albay, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused JONATHAN G. BIRON, not being legally authorized to sell and deliver any dangerous drug, then and there knowingly, willfully, and feloniously, sold for Php1,000.00 and delivered to co-accused ARJAY MENDEZ and ERIC E. PALOMER (as buyers)[,] acting in conspiracy with said accused JONATHAN G. BIRON, two (2) pieces heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet respectively marked as CBR3 and CBR5[,] respectively containing 0.0913 gram and 0.0855 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride ("shabu"), knowing the same to be a dangerous drug, to the damage and prejudice of the public and government.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]
Crim. Case Nos. T-7306 & T-7307:The prosecution moved to consolidate the cases and prayed for the reconsideration of the assailed Decisions. However, the RTC denied the same in an Order,[11] dated September 24, 2019:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused JONATHAN GABRIEL BIRON guilty for:Accordingly also, the accused is hereby ordered to: 1) voluntarily submit himself in Risk Assessment Program by the concerned Rural Health Office and to undergo appropriate program[,] such as General Intervention, Community[-]Based Rehabilitation, and/or After Care Program of the Government; 2) support and cooperate with the Anti-Illegal Drug Campaign of the Philippine National Police (PNP), Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Local Government Units (LGU)[,] and other concerned government agencies to suppress and eradicate the proliferation of Illegal Drugs in the community[,] and will also serve as a lecturer/resource speaker during symposia on the ill-effects of illegal drugs to the user as well as in the community; and, 3) not engage in any illegal activities[,] particularly illegal drug activities[,] and shall help and support the proper authorities in maintaining the peace and order in the community and in the Barangay where he is residing. The above-stated conditions shall be incorporated in the conditions for his probation and any violation thereof shall be a ground for the cancellation and revocation of his probation.
- Violation of Section 12 of RA 9165 (Possession of Equipment, Apparatus, and other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs) and he is hereby meted an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years to four (4) years[,] and a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00) for Criminal case No. T-7306.
- Violation of Section 12 of RA 9165 (Possession of Equipment, Apparatus, and other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs) and he is hereby meted an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years to four (4) years[,] and a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00) for Criminal case No. T-7307.
SO ORDERED.
Crim. Case Nos. T-7308:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused JONATHAN GABRIEL BIRON, ARJAY MENDEZ and ERIC EBUENGA PALOMER guilty for Violation of Section 12 of RA 9165 (Possession of Equipment, Apparatus, and other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs) and are hereby meted an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years to four (4) years[,] and a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00) each.
Accordingly also, the accused are hereby ordered to: 1) voluntarily submit himself in Risk Assessment Program by the concerned Rural Health Office and to undergo appropriate program[,] such as General Intervention, Community[-]Based Rehabilitation, and/or After Care Program of the Government; 2) support and cooperate with the Anti-Illegal Drug Campaign of the Philippine National Police (PNP), Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Local Government Units (LGU)[,] and other concerned government agencies to suppress and eradicate the proliferation of Illegal Drugs in the community[,] and will also serve as a lecturer/resource speaker during symposia on the ill-effects of illegal drugs to the user as well as in the community; and, 3) not engage in any illegal activities[,] particularly illegal drug activities[,] and shall help and support the proper authorities in maintaining the peace and order in the community and in the Barangay where they are residing. The above-stated conditions shall be incorporated in the conditions for their probation and any violation thereof shall be a ground for the cancellation and revocation of their probation.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Consequently, there exists no reason why the good prosecutor will move for the reconsideration of the aforesaid decision, it being laid as basis, the Supreme Court Administrative Circular which is above that of the Department of Justice circular[,] which from whence the good prosecutor is banking his opposition because the Administrative Matter issued by the Supreme Court is over and above the Administrative circular issued by the Department of Justice. The Supreme Court in promulgating said Administrative Circular is exercising its rule[-]making power in consonance with the provision under the Constitution that the Supreme Court shall have the authority to pass circular in conjunction with its rule[-]making power.Unperturbed, the respondent through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 ascribing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction against the RTC for granting the petitioners' plea-bargain and allowing them to plead guilty to a lesser offense despite the prosecution's vehement objection.
Consequently, without being repetitive, this Court is denying the motion for reconsideration filed by the prosecution.
SO ORDERED.[12]
In the said case, the accused was charged for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 and moved to plead guilty to a lesser offense of Section 12 of RA 9165 pursuant to AM No. 18-03-16-SC. For its part, the prosecution therein made a counter-proposal that the accused should plead guilty for the offense under Section 11, paragraph 3 of RA 9165 pursuant to DOJ Circular No. 2719. The trial court therein denied the motion of the accused. In sustaining the trial court, the Supreme Court categorically declared therein that a plea bargain still requires the mutual agreement of the parties and remains subject to the approval of the court. It treated the refusal of the prosecution to adopt the acceptable plea bargain under AM No. 18-03-16-SC as a continuing objection for its part which should be resolved by the trial court. It ratiocinated that because of the continuing objection by the prosecution, there was no mutual agreement that can be submitted for the court's approval. By so doing, the Supreme Court harmonized its rule-making authority vis-à-vis the DOJ Circular No. 27 such that the latter merely serves as guidelines for prosecutors to observe before giving their consent to a proposed plea bargain.[17] ( Citations omitted)The CA likewise held:
Anent petitioner's argument that the elements of the lesser offense under Section 12 of RA 9165 are totally different from the elements of the offenses under Sections 5 and 11, RA 9165, it must be emphasized that the rules merely require the presence of some essential elements or ingredients for two offenses to be considered as either one necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the other. Thus, it has been construed that "[a]n offense may be said to necessarily include another when some of the essential offense elements of ingredients of the former constitute the latter. And vice versa, an offense may be said to be necessarily included in another when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter."[18] (Citations omitted)The CA ruled that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it allowed the petitioners to plea-bargain and plead to a lesser offense despite the prosecution's objection. A decision rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounts to lack of jurisdiction, which in turn, prevents double jeopardy from attaching.
1. Offers for plea bargaining must be initiated in writing by way of a formal written motion filed by the accused in court.Here, the RTC anchored its ruling on A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC where the quantity of the suspected illicit drugs was within the allowable amounts accepted as subject of the plea bargaining agreement:
2. The lesser offense which the accused proposes to plead guilty to must necessarily be included in the offense charged.
3. Upon receipt of the proposal for plea bargaining that is compliant with the provisions of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases, the judge shall order that a drug dependency assessment be administered. If the accused admits drug use, or denies it but is found positive after a drug dependency test, then he/she shall undergo treatment and rehabilitation for a period of not less than six (6) months. Said period shall be credited to his/her penalty and the period of his/her after-care and follow-up program if the penalty is still unserved. If the accused is found negative for drug use/dependency, then he/she will be released on time served, otherwise, he/she will serve his/her sentence in jail minus the counselling period at rehabilitation center.
4. As a rule, plea bargaining requires the mutual agreement of the parties and remains subject to the approval of the court. Regardless of the mutual agreement of the parties, the acceptance of the offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is not demandable by the accused as a matter of right but is a matter addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the court.a. Though the prosecution and the defense may agree to enter into a plea bargain, it does not follow that the courts will automatically approve the proposal. Judges must still exercise sound discretion in granting or denying plea bargaining, taking into account the relevant circumstances, including the character of the accused.5. The court shall not allow plea bargaining if the objection to the plea bargaining is valid and supported by evidence to the effect that:a. the offender is a recidivist, habitual offender, known in the community as a drug addict and a troublemaker, has undergone rehabilitation but had a relapse, or has been charged many times; or6. Plea bargaining in drugs cases shall not be allowed when the proposed plea bargain does not conform to the Court-issued Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases.
b. when the evidence of guilt is strong.
7. Judges may overrule the objection of the prosecution if it is based solely on the ground that the accused's plea bargaining proposal is inconsistent with the acceptable plea bargain under any internal rules or guidelines of the DOJ, though in accordance with the plea bargaining framework issued by the Court, if any.
8. If the prosecution objects to the accused's plea bargaining proposal due to the circumstances enumerated in item no. 5, the trial court is mandated to hear the prosecution's objection and rule on the merits thereof. If the trial court finds the objection meritorious, it shall order the continuation of the criminal proceedings.
9. If an accused applies for probation in offenses punishable under RA No. 9165, other than for illegal drug trafficking or pushing under Section 5 in relation to Section 24 thereof, then the law on probation shall apply.[22]
In ruling upon the motion for reconsideration, the Court once again is citing Supreme Court en banc resolution issued Administrative Matter No. 18-03-16-SC (Adoption of the Plea-Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases). Said Administrative Matter allows the accused to enter into a plea-bargaining agreement with respect to Section 5 Article 11 of Republic Act 9165, as long as it is methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" and the quantity is 0.01 gram to 0.99 grams and the plea-bargaining allowed is under Sec. 12 of Art. 11 of R.A. 9165.[23]The RTC likewise premised its ruling on the petitioners' desire to avail of the benefit of the provisions of the Probation Law and be given another chance to live a clean, peaceful, crime-free and drug-free life, and undertaking to cooperate and abide by whatever obligations are imposed by the Court.